i would go and talk to the housing authority in your area and asked if they have a voucher homeownership program -- ask if they have a thout sure, ownership program -- have a voucher homeownership program. we represent the developers and owners of section 8 as well as those who represent the program. we have done this since 1972. host: denise muha, executive director o thank you for being with us today. >> coming up from the white house, president obama on his jobs plan.

at that time white house budget director jack lew on how the administration plans to pay for the package. and later but mckeon on the budget deficit. next, president obama on his jobs plan and efforts to encourage congress to pass the bill. he was joined by teachers, police officers, and firefighters. from the rose garden, this is just under 15 minutes. >> please, everybody, have a seat, on this beautiful morning. it's wonderful to see all of you here. on thursday, i told congress that i'll be sending them a bill called the american jobs act. well, here it is. [applause] this is a bill that will put people back to work all across the country. this is the bill that will help

our economy in a moment of national crisis. this is a bill that is based on ideas from both democrats and republicans. and this is the bill that congress needs to pass. no games. no politics. no delays. i'm sending this bill to congress today, and they ought to pass it immediately. [applause] standing with me this morning are men and women who will be helped by the american jobs act. i'm standing with teachers. all across america, teachers are being laid off in droves -- which is unfair to our kids, it undermines our future, and it is exactly what we shouldn't be doing if we want our kids to be college-ready and then prepared for the jobs of the 21st century.

we've got to get our teachers back to work. let's pass this bill and put them in the classroom where they belong. i'm standing here with veterans. we've got hundreds of thousands of brave, skilled americans who fought for this country. the last thing they should have to do is to fight for a job when they come home. so let's pass this bill and put the men and women who served this nation back to work. we're standing here with cops and firefighters whose jobs are threatened because states and communities are cutting back. this bill will keep cops on the beat, and firefighters on call. so let's pass this bill so that these men and women can continue protecting our neighborhoods like they do every single day. i'm standing with construction workers. we've got roads that need work

all over the country. our highways are backed up with traffic. our airports are clogged. and there are millions of unemployed construction workers who could rebuild them. so let's pass this bill so road crews and diggers and pavers and workers -- they can all head back to the jobsite. there's plenty of work to do. this job -- this jobs bill will help them do it. let's put them back to work. let's pass this bill rebuilding america. and there are schools throughout the country that desperately need renovating. we cannot -- got an "amen" over there. [laughter] we can't expect our kids to do their best in places that are literally falling apart. this is america. every kid deserves a great school -- and we can give it to them. pass this bill and we put construction crews back to work across the country repairing and modernizing at least 35,000

schools. i'm standing here with small business owners. they know that while corporate profits have come roaring back, a lot of small businesses haven't. they're still struggling -- getting the capital they need, getting the support they need in order to grow. so this bill cuts taxes for small businesses that hire new employees and for small businesses that raise salaries for current employees. it cuts your payroll tax in half. and all businesses can write off investments they make this year and next year. instead of just talking about america's job creators, let's actually do something for america's job creators. we can do that by passing this bill. now, there are a lot of other ways that this jobs bill, the american jobs act, will help this economy. it's got a $4,000 tax credit for companies that hire anybody who spent more than six months looking for a job. we've got to do more for folks who've been hitting the pavement every single day looking for work, but haven't

found employment yet. that's why we need to extend unemployment insurance and connect people to temporary work to help upgrade their skills. this bill will help hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged young people find summer jobs next year -- jobs that will help set the direction for their entire lives. and the american jobs act would prevent taxes from going up for middle-class families. if congress does not act, just about every family in america will pay more taxes next year. and that would be a self- inflicted wound that our economy just can't afford right now. so let's pass this bill and give the typical working family a $1,500 tax cut instead. and the american jobs act is not going to add to the debt -- it's fully paid for. i want to repeat that. it is fully paid for. it's not going to add a dime to the deficit.

next week, i'm laying out my plan not only to pay for this jobs bill but also to bring down the deficit further. it's a plan that lives by the same rules that families do -- we've got to cut out things that we can't afford to do in order to afford the things that we really need. it's a plan that says everybody -- including the wealthiest americans and biggest corporations -- have to pay their fair share. the bottom line is, when it comes to strengthening the economy and balancing our books, we've got to decide what our priorities are. do we keep tax loopholes for oil companies -- or do we put teachers back to work? should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires -- or should we invest in education and technology and infrastructure, all the things that are going to help us out- innovate and out-educate and out-build other countries in the future? we know what's right. we know what will help

businesses start right here and stay here and hire here. we know that if we take the steps outlined in this jobs plan, that there's no reason why we can't be selling more goods all around the world that are stamped with those three words -- "made in america." that's what we need to do to create jobs right now. i have to repeat something i said in my speech on thursday. there are some in washington who'd rather settle our differences through politics and the elections than try to resolve them now. in fact, joe and i, as we were walking out here, we were looking at one of the washington newspapers and it was quoting a republican aide saying, "i don't know why we'd want to cooperate with obama right now. it's not good for our politics." that was very explicit. >> it was. >> i mean, that's the attitude in this town -- "yeah, we've been through these things before, but i don't know why we'd be for them right now."

the fact of the matter is the next election is 14 months away. and the american people don't have the luxury of waiting 14 months for congress to take action. folks are living week to week, paycheck to paycheck. they need action. and the notion that there are folks who would say, we're not going to try to do what's right for the american people because we don't think it's convenient for our politics -- we've been seeing that too much around here. and that's exactly what folks are tired of. and that's okay, when things are going well, you play politics. it's not okay at a time of great urgency and need all across the country. these aren't games we're playing out here. folks are out of work.

businesses are having trouble staying open. you've got a world economy that is full of uncertainty right now -- in europe, in the middle east. some events may be beyond our control, but this is something we can control. whether we not -- whether or not we pass this bill, whether or not we get this done, that's something that we can control. that's in our hands. you hear a lot of folks talking about uncertainty in the economy. this is a bit of uncertainty that we could avoid by going ahead and taking action to make sure that we're helping the american people. so if you agree with me, if you want congress to take action, then i'm going to need everybody here and everybody watching -- you've got to make sure that your voices are heard.

help make the case. there's no reason not to pass this bill. its ideas are bipartisan. its ideas are common sense. it will make a difference. that's not just my opinion. independent economists and validators have said this could add a significant amount to our gross domestic product, and could put people back to work all across the country. so the only thing that's stopping it is politics. and we can't afford these same political games. not now. so i want you to pick up the phone. i want you to send an email. use one of those airplane skywriters. [laughter] dust off the fax machine. or you can just, like, write a letter. [laughter] so long as you get the message

to congress -- send me the american jobs act so i can sign it into law. let's get something done. let's put this country back to work. thank you very much, everybody. god bless you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] ♪ ["stars and stripes forever" playing] [applause]

♪ >> next, jack lew on how the administration plans to pay for the president's job plan and still achieve deficit reduction. after that, jay carney times questions regarding the president's plan.

>> it's your lucky day. before i get started and tell you why i have jack lew here, i just wanted to give you a sense of where this week is headed for the president. today, as you know, the president, flanked by the kinds of workers who would benefit from the american jobs act, announced that he would be presenting specific legislative language on the bill today. he's still asking congress to take up and pass the bill promptly. tomorrow the president will travel to columbus, ohio, where he will visit a school that was recently modernized. he'll get a firsthand sense of the jobs that were created and the tangible benefits to the students, teachers, parents and communities that this will provide. that's why he's included money for school construction and modernization in the american jobs act. on wednesday, the president will visit a small business in the raleigh-durham area that would benefit from the bipartisan proposals included in the american jobs act, including enjoying a reduction in their payroll tax and an expanded payroll. i have with me today jack lew, the director of the office of management and budget. as you know, as you heard from

the president, he will be submitting the american jobs act to congress later today. you've been briefed i think pretty extensively on the provisions that create jobs and grow the economy in that act. part of the act the president presents to congress today has what we call pay-fors -- has the mechanisms by which those provisions will be paid for. jack is here to discuss those with you, explain them to you. if you want to ask him questions that he can handle, and then i will, of course, remain and take your questions on other subjects. thank you. jack lew. >> thanks, jay. let me start by putting the whole pay-for package into perspective. when the president spoke to congress last week he said he was going to present the jobs and growth package -- it's

roughly $450 billion -- and that it would be paid for. and today he's sending legislation to congress that has both the growth package agenda and the pay-fors in it. he is presenting a series of specifics -- which i will get to in a minute -- but he also said that the target for the joint committee should be raised. and i know that's caused a little bit of confusion, so i thought i'd start by putting the relationship between the two into perspective and then going through the details. this is a standalone bill. it has the investments in growth and jobs, and it has some provisions that pay for it. by raising the target of the joint committee what we're saying is congress should pass the jobs bill now with the pay- fors, and when the joint committee reaches its decisions later in the fall, it can then either put in new offsets to pay for it, and that would trigger the pay-fors in the bill off, or it can do the original target of $1.5 trillion and then the pay-fors that are in the jobs bill will stand. so that's the relationship between the joint committee and the bill. the bill is paid for. and whichever path the joint committee takes, the jobs piece

is paid for. it's a question of whether or not the joint committee comes back and essentially replaces these offsets with others. the specific offsets that are in the package are a series of tax provisions. i think they'll be familiar to most of you because they're ideas that we have been talking about for the most part for some time. first there's a limit on itemized deductions and certain exemptions for individuals who earn over $200,000, and families earning over $250,000. that limitation raises roughly $400 billion over 10 years. there is a provision that would treat carried interest -- that's the interest earned by investment fund managers -- as ordinary income, rather than taxing it at the capital gains rate. and that would raise $18 billion. there are a number of oil and gas provisions, which,

collectively, raise $40 billion. that would -- with the enactment of these provisions, would treat the oil and gas industry like other industries, taking away the special preference. and finally, the corporate jet depreciation rule is changed. right now corporate jets are depreciated over five years, commercial over seven. it would treat commercial and corporate jets the same, at five years. that raises $3 billion. in the aggregate, these provisions actually raise $467 billion. it intentionally overachieves because these are based on our estimates internally. when the congress estimates tax provisions, and we estimate tax provisions, they rarely are pinpoint-accurate to the same number. sometimes they're higher, sometimes they're lower. and it just built in a cushion so that as we go through the

process of having the scoring done on the hill, we've built in a cushion for the differences that happen. but we do believe we've overachieved, which would leave a bit of excess. that's kind of the package of offsets. i could take questions. >> jack, i wonder on that one point, though, when you say you've overachieved, the very first one you listed with the biggest amount of money, $400 billion, eliminating itemized deductions. i seem to remember in 2009, in the president's first budget, that very provision was in there, and you were saying then -- i know you were not omb chair, but your predecessor was saying that that was going to pay for health care reform. and you had a democratic house and a democratic senate, and it went nowhere. so how are you going to get it done now with a republican house? >> i think that the merits of the proposal stand on its own. as the president made clear in the speech last thursday, and as he's spoken to the issue subsequently, we have choices to make. we have -- in order to invest

in jobs and growth, we're going to have to pay for it. and we're going to have to look at quite a few things that we've looked at before and ask the question, should we do this in order to add to growth and create jobs. we think the american people will think this is the right package. but it's our offer as to what the right way to pay for it is. we think congress should take it up and pass it. >> but if congress doesn't agree, you essentially have $50 billion left for -- >> well, but we believe congress should agree. we believe congress should agree. >> but if they don't, you've got no money. >> we have policies here that are very real. and again, it's a choice. do we want to leave -- the way this limitation on itemized deductions works, if you earn $200,000 in individual or $250,000 as a family, your itemized deductions and exemptions are worth roughly 28%. that's the tax break. if you're in a higher tax bracket, it's worth 33 or 36%. all this says is that the value

of tax deductions above that threshold should be the same as the value at the threshold. faire think it's a provision. we think that it's the kind of balanced tradeoff that would be right. and let me also point out that we are pulling out of the package that we'll present next week the pieces that, self- contained, are the jobs and growth package and the pay-for. we're going to have a lot more detail a week from today of what the overall deficit reduction package is. we're going to overachieve, beyond the joint committee target. what the president has been saying and will continue saying is we need to do the jobs bill and the growth package now and we need to deal with the fiscal challenges, and frankly, we should do more than the target the joint committee has. this is the piece that, taken alone, would do the jobs and growth package in a paid-for way. >> what's the rationale for having congress vote on this set of pay-fors along with the

jobs bill, then giving the super committee the option to redo that package? >> well, frankly, the urgency is to act as soon as possible on the jobs and growth package. we don't think that it would be the best course of action, would be the right course of action, to just defer everything to the end of the year. we wanted to pull out the provisions that we thought could move most quickly to get action taken, so that, as the president has said, congress can take up a bill and pass it. as far as how we reach the deficit reduction goals, which is what the mandate of the joint committee is, there's a little bit more time if they wanted to go back and do some fine-tuning. so if you think of it as a kind of trigger mechanism, these are in place unless the joint committee acts to trigger them off. and it really is a way to try to get action started sooner. >> is there any provision in here where the -- whatever congress would decide on these pay-fors, if they want to pass,

the super committee would have to make a decision -- if they were to redo that package, they would at least make sure that it was of an equal amount? >> the super committee, if the recommendations as we are putting them forward are adopted, will have to hit the target of $1.5 trillion plus the cost of the jobs bill. so if they want to take these provisions and displace them under those rules, they would have to equal it. obviously congress can pass a subsequent law. >> jack, is it fair to say that given these pay-fors, that the president believes that the wealthiest americans should pay more in order to pay for his jobs bill? >> i think what this package means is that we want action taken now on the jobs and growth package. it is a challenge to break apart a multi-trillion-dollar deficit reduction package so you can get a piece that stands on its own and moves quickly. this was the attempt to put

together a package that can be self-contained and move quickly. i think in terms of looking at the overall balance of shared sacrifice, when you see the package next monday, you'll see that there's shared sacrifice that's substantially broader than just the wealthiest americans. i think what the president has said and what this means is that as we're going through the process of dealing with paying for the jobs and growth package and reducing the deficit, that the most fortunate have to be part of that. >> but the president is about to embark on a campaign where he's going to blame republicans and congress if they don't pass this jobs bill. and he's setting it up as -- you pointed out -- as a choice. the choice between jobs for americans, or tax cuts for corporate jet owners, oil and gas companies, and for deductions for the wealthiest americans. is that incorrect? >> at its most simple level, what the president said on thursday night stands and is just profoundly true -- we can't afford everything. we have to make choices. and i think if the american

people were asked to make a choice between tax breaks for investment fund managers who get preferential treatment for carried interest, and oil and gas industry tax breaks that treat oil and gas more favorably than other investments, and corporate jets that are treated more favorably than commercial, that is not a hard choice for most americans if the choice is creating economic growth and jobs, or tolerating the results of many years of inequities in the tax code. >> how many jobs will be created with this plan? >> we have not put out an official administration estimate -- >> why not? >> well, we just don't do official job estimates. and -- >> do you have numbers that you -- >> i think that we've seen the same numbers that you've seen that private forecasters have put out -- mark zandi put out some numbers on friday. macroeconomic advisers put out some numbers on friday. there's a range, but it's millions of jobs. it's a very substantial amount

of job growth, whichever of the numbers you look at. >> so the zandi numbers are on target, would you say? >> well, i referred to two numbers that came out in different places. there's a range. i don't remember -- i think zandi said 1.9 million -- yes, 1.9 million, and macroeconomic advisers a little bit lower. in each case, they kind of demonstrate that there is very significant impact on gdp growth, very significant impact on job growth, and very significant reduction in unemployment, which is why the president's message to congress is, take this bill up and pass it, and pass it now. >> isn't it easier, though, to sell a plan to the american people if you can say, listen, this jobs bill will create 2 million jobs or 1.5 million? doesn't that make it an easier sell? >> it's always a challenge with these kinds of projections because they're subject to a lot of things other than just what you're proposing in the package.

i think we are very comfortable looking at the estimates that outside experts have done, which very much support the importance of this package as an engine of economic growth in terms of faster gdp growth, in terms of job growth, in terms of bringing down unemployment. and i think that the american people don't want us to be standing here kind of arguing over estimates but getting the job done to create jobs. >> a question about what you're going to propose next week. you say you're going to overachieve the target -- i guess you're referring to the $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion. >> correct. >> so you are -- there have been a lot of calls for the grand bargain again, go big, do the $4 trillion package. he is not going to do that next week? >> i'm not going to get ahead of what the president is going to announce a week from today, but i can safely say that it will achieve beyond the targets the joint committee has, fully pay for the jobs package, and stabilize the deficit and debt in this 10-year window.

>> when you say go beyond or overachieve, you're talking about the kind of cushion you just provided for your jobs act. you're not talking about go beyond, as in go all the way to $4 trillion? >> i'm not saying where we're going, but it will overachieve compared to the joint committee target. >> if you really want quick package of a standalone bill in a congress that's half republican, or one half is controlled by the republicans, why no spending cuts in this pay-for package? >> well, i just want to remind everyone that in august, just a few weeks ago, we had an agreement that locked in very substantial spending cuts in discretionary spending. we have a joint committee that is going to be working on deficit reduction. and as i indicated, on monday we're going to be coming in with a proposal that shows a balanced approach to shared sacrifice. the challenge in this jobs and growth package is to put together something that's self-

contained that can move, and that's what we put together here. >> but you know that republicans will say that the sacrifice is not shared in this. it's all -- >> if you look at the overall impact, i think one can look at the budget control act and see a trillion dollars of savings. one can look ahead at the joint committee with the full knowledge that there are going to be calls for additional spending cuts there. the president has always said that a balanced approach involves all of them, not just some of the areas of the budget. and this is one piece of the overall effort. >> maybe i'm just not getting it, but i thought that all these things that are in the pay-fors that he is proposing now are things that were proposed before when it was a smaller amount of -- before this got added to the stuff that the super committee is going to have to do. so does this mean that itemized deductions, carried interest, oil and gas provisions, and the corporate jet stuff are off the table for the additional cuts that they'll have to come up

with, or that there could be more of these -- these numbers plus more? i don't know if i worded that in a way that makes sense. >> obviously each of the things that saves money or raises revenue can only be used once. and i do understand that there's the risk that if you kind of use things in two places you don't get the result you mean. we are saying that next week we will be putting out a plan, which includes these provisions and others, that will overachieve compared to the joint committee plan. the joint committee will then look at what we've submitted to it. it will look at other things as well. they will make some choices as to how they want to approach deficit reduction. so this hopefully will have passed the congress, will be in place as something that takes effect unless they take some other action. and in that case, they couldn't use it to meet their $1.5 trillion. >> right.

whether congress accepts the president's proposal, or whether the joint committee decides to seize on these, even if they pay for $467 billion, that $467 billion has got to offset $447 billion -- >> yes, so it would be $1.5 trillion -- >> so they are at zero. then you have to have completely new, other ways to -- >> that is correct. >> why this separation of (inaudible)? i understand you want to put the pay-fors with the jobs plan as a package, but why not put out the deficit reduction plan, the larger one, now instead of a week from now? the committee is meeting a couple of times before they'll see what the president is putting forward. >> we're working hard on putting the final plan together and we'll put it out a week from today, which is very much in time to be part of the committee's deliberations. it's very much our purpose to have the president's specific details out there early in the

process. so that -- >> so it's that it's just not complete yet? >> no, i think that the urgency of the jobs and growth package is that we have an immediate, urgent need for congress to act on jobs and growth. it can't wait until thanksgiving and it can't wait until christmas. so we can't tie dealing with jobs and growth to the schedule of the joint committee. we moved as quickly as possible to get the jobs and growth package out, so literally as soon as congress returned from the august break this package is out there. thursday was the presentation of the policy. today we're sending legislative language. we're moving very quickly to get this jobs and growth package up there. we'll bring the full package out a week from today. >> what time is the -- when are you sending this? >> later in the day today. congress is in, in the afternoon, i believe, but the exact time we'll --

>> the president has talked about making sure wealthy corporations pay their fair share. treasury is supposed to come out with this white paper on corporate tax reform. and i'm just wondering if the deficit reduction plan next week might include eliminating or limiting the national tax break, particularly international tax law -- ofi don't want to get ahead what the president said last thursday and what he's going to say a week from today. there will be additional discussion of our corporate tax plan in the package next week, though. >> a couple more for jack, and then we'll move on. >> do you anticipate any job losses from raising taxes? >> first of all, the kinds of provisions that we are talking about changing we don't believe will cause any kind of a reduction in economic activity or job loss. so just in terms of the

substance of these policies, we're very comfortable that they're consistent with economic growth. secondly, in terms of timing, these provisions don't take effect until january 2013. so i think between the fact that they're not provisions that substantively should have that impact and that won't even be on the books until january 2013, it's very consistent in terms of paying for an immediate jobs and growth package. >> in the middle of the row -- yes, sir. >> thank you, jay. old glasses, i see. >> i'll get to that. [laughter] >> jack, when you talk about what the figure is and how many jobs are created, as dan did in the previous question, one has to go back to january of '09 when the stimulus package was unveiled, and dr. romer and jared bernstein said at the time it would bring unemployment levels down to 6.8%. and they have not gone down to that level now. how can there be confidence in

any figures you offer on jobs created or what the unemployment will be, based on that record? >> as you know, i was not a member of the economic team then and i have an outsider's knowledge of the deliberations that were going on at the time. i will say that the recovery act produced the level of new jobs that was expected. what changed was that the economy was in a much deeper recession than anyone knew at the time. the hole was deeper and it was that much harder to get out. so i think there's a danger of ever predicting unemployment rates, because as i said in response to the earlier question, there's a lot of things that determine what the unemployment rate is and will be. so even if you create x-million new jobs, if you started out

farther behind in economic growth, it's going to take longer to hit a certain level of employment/unemployment. so my own view is and always has been that it's a dangerous thing to try to pinpoint predicting unemployment rates. i do think that when you look at a package like this that you know is going to have a positive impact in terms of gdp growth, and you know it's going to have a positive effect on jobs with a multiplier, that there is very much a demonstrable impact on job growth. i think the position we're in is right, which is to rely on outside experts who take a range of views, and it sets, i think, an objective measure that policymakers can look to, to kind of see the bandwidth of what the impact is likely to be. and as i've said, all the numbers i've seen range in a pretty tight space, but showing substantial positive impact on both gdp growth, substantial impact on jobs growth, and a substantial reduction in unemployment. >> but there will no more predictions of what the figures

will -- >> i'm not making any other predictions. >> i'm going to let -- i'm sorry, go ahead, tricia, and then i'm going to let jack go. >> given that the republicans are already quibbling over what's in the package, what will you do to get it passed in terms of what elements are you guys willing to let go? >> well, we are going to be sending congress later today the president's proposal. we think congress should take that proposal up and should pass it. so i'm not going to stand here before we've even transmitted it to congress and speculate on a on but hypothetical. i think it's clear that what we're doing would help the economy enormously. it would create jobs. everything in it is the kind of initiative that either now or in the past has had bipartisan support. we think there's the basis for working together and doing something that would very much help the american people and the american economy. >> so your position now is you're going to push for everything that's in it?

>> i said we're transmitting to congress our proposals this afternoon and we very much urge them to take it up and to pass it. >> thank you, jack. appreciate it, as always. >> how many pages in it, jay? how many pages? >> i'll have to get that for you. >> haven't counted them yet. >> i'll have to get that for you. i'm going to -- before i go straight to questions, i'm going to respond to a couple of things here. tricia, on yours, the president believes the united states congress should, upon receiving the american jobs act, pass it. he is submitting a bill that, by the estimate of any economist on the outside whose phd is worth the value of the paper it's printed on, would say creates jobs and grows the economy by incentivizing the private sector, by putting more money in americans' pockets, by putting teachers back to work, putting construction workers back to work, police and firefighters. and he believes the american

jobs act should be passed by congress. second, if i could, i think we'll see the reference to dr. romer and dr. bernstein's estimates many times in political advertisements coming forward, many times from candidates and political committees. i think it ought to be incumbent upon people who are journalists to at least acknowledge in their writing, if not in the phrasing of their question, what jack lew just talked about, which is that the forecasts made in early 2009 were based on the economic data available to any economist inside or outside the administration. and what we didn't know -- in fact, what we only learned this summer -- is that in the fourth quarter of 2008, the american economy contracted 9% -- before this president took office. the next month, when he took office, at the end of that month -- by the end of that

month, the american economy had shed in that month alone 770,000 jobs. again, i certainly don't think that you are suggesting that president obama, regardless of his forecast of his economic team, is responsible for that. so i just think that we need to -- and i will simply go on and -- those 770,000 jobs we talked about losing in january of 2009 were part of a total that reached 8 million as a result of the recession that was in full bloom, as we know now, when he took office. so, at least as a reporter, acknowledge that there's a separation between a talking point and the facts on the ground at the time. yes. >> but if you start raising taxes on people, won't that do the opposite of what the president said thursday night with the jobs bill? now you want to raise taxes on mortgage interest, charitable contributions -- that's going to hit people in the wallet. >> i think jack addressed that we certainly do not believe that anything in this provision would do anything but -- in this american jobs act would do anything but grow the economy and create jobs. it would not harm job creation.

we are also talking about, as the president made clear, we have to act now to help the economy grow, to help the private sector hire, and to ensure that firefighters and teachers and others go back to work. we will -- you need to act now to do that. the timeframe over which the american jobs act would be paid for ensures that there is no negative impact in the short term in terms of the costs involved. so, no, we very much believe -- and again, look -- >> but if you start raising taxes on people making -- individuals making $200,000, that's not going to affect their spending habits? it's not going to affect the economy? >> look, you're welcome to interview economists about whether or not, if you make more than $200,000 a year, or $250,000 as a family, whether or not itemizing your deductions to create more tax advantage for you rather than people who are at that level or below, what kind of effect that has on the economy. again, the pay-fors are spread

out to ensure that there aren't negative impacts from that. the need to take action to help the economy grow and create jobs is urgent and present right now, and that's why the president believes he ought to take action. julie. >> jay, has the president spoken with boehner or mcconnell, any of the republican leaders, on the details of the pay-fors? >> i don't have any phone calls or meetings to read out to you now or to announce to you. i'm sure there will be plenty of consultations going forward. as you know, the president spoke with speaker boehner and senator mcconnell on thursday, prior to his -- >> but did he talk about the pay-fors in those conversations -- >> i think he spoke about, in general, about the american jobs act and the provisions within it. but again, julie, this conversation -- the legislation goes to congress, which i believe gets back in session later today -- once congress gets back in session. the conversation will continue once the legislation hits the desk up there. >> but my question is -- this is a lot of déjà vu -- we talked about corporate jet owners and we talked about oil

and gas companies during the debt ceiling, and the administration wasn't able to get republicans on board with any of those proposals. so why would the president think republicans would agree to them now? >> well, let's be clear that the negotiations around the debt ceiling crisis, in which the speaker of the house and the president of the united states tried to reach a grand bargain on the $3 to $4 trillion scale in terms of deficit reduction involved both spending cuts -- discretionary spending cuts, entitlement reform and tax reform -- tax revenues. as the speaker himself ultimately did admit on the floor of the house, he had agreed to put revenues on the table. now, we already passed and have signed into law the roughly $1 trillion in budget cuts. that's -- going to mara's question -- when you're talking about $4 trillion, you've got to -- this is not another new -- if you were going for $4 trillion now, you can't then make it $5 trillion, because we've passed $1 trillion, all

right? so that's $1 trillion. and it was always the case, in the grand bargain and simpson- bowles and rivlin-domenici, that these were building blocks -- the discretionary cuts, the entitlement reform, tax reform, savings from interest, etc. so the president is asking the congress to make choices, because, as he said, we simply don't have the capacity to pay for everything -- to pay for special treatment in the tax code for oil and gas companies, which are also making record profits this year, and jobs for up to 280,000 teachers. we don't have enough to pay for a special little provision in the tax code for corporate jet owners that doesn't apply to commercial jet owners, and also pay for the kind of repairs that schools across the country need. and those are the kinds of -- i think he believes -- i know he believes, because i've talked to him about it -- that members of congress in the house and

senate went back to their districts and states over the august recess and got an earful from their constituents, who, by and large, because they're americans, are fed up with what they're witnessing in washington -- the kind of political posturing, the gamesmanship over ideological imperatives that most americans do not care about. because they just want washington, at the very least, not to do harm to the economy, which washington did do this summer. but more than that, they expect the people they send to washington to take positive action, and that requires coming together and doing things in a sensible, balanced way -- which is why the president put forward the american jobs act, which includes -- now you've seen it -- provisions that republicans, either now or in the past, have supported. and if they take the imperative that they need to act on the

economy and act to create jobs now, they will take this legislation very seriously. i'll go tricia and then helene. yes. >> on a separate subject, polls are showing that the republican is ahead in the special election in new york in a strongly -- what has been a strongly democratic district. and they're saying it's a referendum on the president and his policies, particularly toward israel. can you talk about that at all? >> i don't know what the polls show in that race. obviously, special elections, small turnout, circumstances involving why the special election is taking place all have an impact on races like that. i will simply point you to a statement that the prime minister of israel made just the other day about the historic level of assistance and cooperation and friendship that president barack obama has shown israel. and i think that answers the question. dan.

>> so, just to go back to what you said a few minutes ago, are you banking on the fact that the political climate has changed, that republicans who have rejected some of these things in the past will now embrace them because the political climate has changed since they've come back from getting an earful, as you pointed out? >> we are hopeful that that is the case, yes. we are hopeful that, as members of congress heard from their constituents and heard that they actually didn't appreciate the willingness by some members to threaten the american and global economy, and the impact that had on the economy in general -- even the fact that we didn't default still -- that we went to the brink, affected confidence, both consumer and business -- they didn't appreciate that. they certainly don't expect washington to make their lives harder. and i think that they -- as we've all seen for the various reasons that the economy has slowed, that the growth and job creation has slowed, the intense focus that the american

people have on the need to address those issues has increased, as you would expect. so i don't think they told -- by and large, that they told -- even at these -- those who had town halls, even the ones that were paid -- required a payment to get in -- they probably heard what the president heard when he was in the midwest, which is, washington needs to be sensible, republicans and democrats need to come together and they need to take action on jobs and the economy, which is why the president has come back, because he agrees, and put forward the american jobs act. >> on another subject, on the terror threat from last week, anything more on that? did that turn out to be something that was foiled because of intelligence? or was it more of just useless chatter in the end? >> oh, well, i think it was not useless chatter. it was a specific, credible threat that was -- because it was a specific, credible threat the actions that you saw the

agencies here responsible for homeland security take were taken, which includes notifying local law enforcement of that specific and credible threat. and i think that we continue to remain very focused, as the president made clear was necessary when he met with his team over the weekend, on pulling all the threads on that threat and chasing it down. and that's what we do for -- with all specific and credible threats, and we'll continue to do it. we are, obviously, relieved that the anniversary of 9/11 -- the 10-year anniversary went off without an incident, because we knew, based on information that was gathered in osama bin laden's compound that al qaeda remained very interested in that specific date and in significant dates in general. but we don't suddenly stop our vigilance the day after. the vigilance continues. and on that issue in particular,

the work continues. let me go to helene. she was -- and then i'll go to mara. >> thanks, jay. how did you break your glasses? >> i am so mad about this. but i lost my glasses. [laughter] i was buying my son a bike for his birthday and -- [reporters awing] >> i know. and i think, when i was taking it off the bike rack at home, that i had had my sunglasses on, and i had the other ones, and i think i put them on the bumper and then drove off. so -- [laughter] >> so no more superman? >> you're blaming your son, then? >> i'm blaming my son -- i take full responsibility for the regrettable action that resulted in the loss of my fancy new glasses. >> are you going to go back to the park and look? >> i'm going to try to rustle the money together, because i do need the prescription -- the new prescription back. yes. >> i realize that all of us keep asking a different version of this question, but since so much of your strategy seems to depend on a change of heart by the republican party because they've been supposedly read the riot act by voters during the

summer recess, have you seen any evidence whatsoever, since they got back, that that is actually the case and that you are dealing with a different political environment? >> we certainly have seen, as you have, some conciliatory messaging, if you will, from some members of congress. and that's a welcome thing. and we think it reflects the fact that -- not that suddenly members of congress who might previously have reacted differently have suddenly decided that when this president says we need to do something, they will suddenly agree where they might not have in the past, but because the american people, the people that elected them, are now telling them that they -- with great clarity and volume, that they need to do something.

so, yes, we have seen some indication that the message of the american people is being heard by members of congress. but we don't have any illusions about the need to keep focusing on this, the need to make clear that urgent action is necessary, that the american people expect washington to take sensible measures to grow the economy and help the private sector create jobs. and so we will keep up that conversation very aggressively. it just goes back to i think what i was saying to julie, which is it becomes a question of choices. and i think margaret was talking about this. i mean, you need to look at it in terms of -- or dan, i can't remember -- but the provisions that are set aside in the american jobs act, if congress were to pass it tomorrow, it would be paid for if it passed it entirely. you needed those discreet measures to make that the case. but when you still look at the overall package, in terms of deficit and debt reduction that the president supports, you're still talking about balance between cuts and revenues. and this goes to the $1 trillion in cuts that he signed

into law. it goes to his commitment, as he restated in his address to the joint session of congress, to deal with entitlement reform, and his absolute insistence that we have to make the burden-sharing here fair. and that goes to revenues and tax reform. so you will see this -- this story continues as we go forward. >> can i follow on helene's question? by wednesday, the president will have done five jobs speeches in just seven days. if you believe that congress was so persuaded when they were back at home, why does the president need such hard-driving tactics in order to sell his plan? >> well, norah, you know as well as i do that in the world we live in 2011, that we do not -- this president, any president, does not command the attention in the sheer numbers of the way our media works. and the reality is, as go the

american people so goes the members of congress, in this case. so we have to keep focusing everyone's attention on this because it's vitally important. you don't just simply say -- >> campaign in order to do this? >> i've been asked this question, isn't this a campaign. you're absolutely right, it is a campaign. the president is campaigning for growth and jobs. he is out there -- >> his reelection. >> he is out there campaigning for growth and jobs. >> not for his reelection? >> he's campaigning to have the american jobs act passed. that's what he talked about in richmond. that's what he'll talk about tomorrow in columbus. and it's what he'll talk about wednesday in raleigh-durham. and i can assure you he will continue to talk about it after that. >> and will he take that message then to non-swing states? there are a number of republicans in the south -- >> he will -- he is taking this -- >> mississippi, alabama -- >> as he said, across the land. yes, every corner. yes, ma'am. >> the president told nbc news, brian williams that this is -- this plan is really insurance against a double-dip recession. does that mean that there are renewed fears about the possibility of a double-dip recession?

>> it's an insurance policy that we do not -- first of all, let me step back. we do not believe -- we continue to say and we believe that we will not experience a so-called double-dip recession. but the fact that the economy has slowed, the fact that job creation has slowed, obviously makes our economic situation less positive than it was, say, six months ago. and there is an unqualified need for greater growth and greater employment -- unqualified. and that's true regardless of where this economy would go if you don't take this action, because it's not acceptable for growth to simply stay at 1%, say, or for private-sector job creation to continue but not continue at the pace that we need it to, to get more americans back to work. so it's an insurance policy in that sense. >> is there a concern that if this doesn't pass that you would be closer?

>> i think that if it doesn't pass -- and we believe it will because congress will listen to the american people and do the right thing -- but if it were not to pass, in that hypothetical, we would obviously forego the boost to the economy and the boost to job creation that it represents. and congress would have to go back at its next recess -- or rather at the end of the year and explain why they felt there was no need to take action on the absolute top priority that the american people have. margaret, good to see you. >> thank you. i wanted to switch gears to foreign policy for a second. writing in today's new york times, turki al-faisal, the former saudi ambassador to the u.s., talked about the palestinians' bid for statehood at the u.n. and the u.s. opposition to it and said that if the u.s. doesn't support the palestinian bid for statehood at the u.n., "saudi arabia would no longer be able to cooperate with america in the same way it historically has." he said u.s.

influence would decline. israeli security would be undermined. iran would be empowered and that the saudis would switch gears on iraq, and maybe afghanistan and yemen. so we've talked before in the briefing about the u.s. position that the u.n. vote is not the right way to go, that direct negotiations are the right way to go. is the u.s. concerned about how the saudis will react? and what are you doing both publicly and behind the scenes to try to prevent everything he foreshadows in here? >> i'll say two things. first of all, we obviously have a lot of important relationships in the region and around the world with countries that care very deeply about this issue, and we will continue to handle those relationships with the -- mindful of the importance that they have for us. but we've been very clear about the fact that the only realistic path for the palestinians to realize their aspirations is through direct negotiations.

a unilateral effort -- palestinian effort to achieve statehood at the u.n. would be counterproductive. even if these actions are well intentioned, they will not achieve statehood. and they will -- and for that reason, we continue to make clear that we oppose it, and we continue to make clear that we believe that both sides need to return to direct negotiations. that is the only path to the kind of solution that the palestinians rightfully want and that the israelis rightfully want. you have to do it through direct negotiations. you won't get it through the u.n. >> do you believe that what he talks about are things that could happen? and what are you doing to try to react since -- >> again, i don't have any specifics with regard to an individual bilateral relationship we have. again, there are a lot of countries in the region and the world who understandably have a specific interest in this, and

we share that interest. and we work with our partners bilaterally and multilaterally to address this issue. we are very convinced that the only way that the palestinians will achieve their aspirations is through direct negotiations. steve. >> just following on that, given the fact that prince turki has been -- has billed himself in the past as a great friend of the united states, and the president has made great efforts to reach out to the muslim world, are you not concerned, whatever the merits of the palestinian case, that a u.s. veto would cause great harm to u.s. foreign policy in the arab world? and does the white house still believe that it could be possible to come to some kind of solution that would convince the palestinians not to necessarily go all the way to the security council next week? >> well, i don't want to predict ahead of time what will or won't happen next week, and i'm just>> well, i don't want tt happen next week, and i'm just

going to restate what i said in answer to the previous question. relationships very seriously. we take concerns expressed by our friends and partners around the world very seriously, but we trying to achieve statehood through the u.n. is will not allow the palestinians to achieve their aspirations. john. >> just to follow and clarify onto avoid the -- to avoid acceleration and job creation of all or some of the pay-fors in increases -- so that they don't but take effect later in the 10-year window? and i apologize if jack addressed that. but the specific -- is that whatokay, that's my understanding. important to go back, again, and negotiations and the

recommendations of simpson- bowles and domenici-rivlin. approaches that were responsible we should be taking measures in the near term that might actually hamper growth, reverse growth or reverse job creation. way that the american jobs act is laid out as well. not take effect until 2013? be the case and what jack said but you'll see more details of this when we submit the legislation. mara. >> yes, well, you can follow, knowledge of it. >> you just said that the $1 trillion of cuts that he cumulative process. and he is for entitlement reform and for a balanced approach to tax reform. what kind of entitlement reform puts -- >> the president made clear that he would put forward to congress committee, super

committee, a specific proposal -- series of proposals that represent his ideas for how we can achieve the kind of significant deficit and on solid fiscal footing going forward. that was his view back during speaker of the house, and it is his view today. those issues. the nature of your question forward a $4 trillion proposal, remember that -- >> you already spent one. >> first of all, what was -- the $4 trillion, roughly, whether -- $3 to $4 trillion -- that the speaker and the president were elements made it into it, trillion dollars, okay? so anything -- that's been done now, the trillion dollars in discretionary cuts that are part passed into law, and

represent a significant -- significant cuts on people. and this goes to the question about, again, balance. did the $467 billion in the pay-fors for the jobs act, that's terms of cuts over revenues, right? that's not enough. the president is going to say, go further. overachieve. wrong way. will it all add up to $4 trillion in the end, including -- >> i think that jack avoided avoid it. of the president of the united specific proposal on -- >> it sounds like you're saying you're not going to touch tax>> no, i'm not. and secondly -- i'm not saying that at all. all, you guys are just guessing of the grand bargain was statements at the time, the reason why there was no piece of paper out there for you to look at is because it was in the desk drawer of certain members of congress. and it was a fluid document

because the final decisions couldn't be resolved, which is why it fell apart. >> if you put aside the number for a minute, if he's going to tackle tax reform and>> it will be big. >> that is the grand bargain. that is big. that would be big -- >> it's a grand bargain if you -- i think the nomenclature here is less important than the elements of the policies and their effect. so, obviously, you add up -- if he's saying, at the minimum the super committee should overachieve by roughly $450 billion -- on top of the $1.5 trillion, that gets you close to $2 trillion, plus the $1 trillion -- that's $3 trillion. but i'm not going to get into any more specifics about what>> can i ask -- >> you can, but i'm not going to do any more -- yes. >> no, no, not about that. so -- but related. -- there are a lot of lawmakers who are thinking about these various pieces -- the part they've already voted on, what the president has presented they'll see today and what he's

going to present next week. and many of them anticipate that they're going to have -- both parties -- that they're going to have to make up their minds what to do in december if the super committee comes up with something. parts of this are tax reform. parts of this are deficit reduction. so if they decide that they're going to have to vote again in september -- i mean in december or january, and they'd like to wait until it is one whole package, my question is what would be lost? we already have a payroll tax extension, right? what would be lost if they decided i want to vote on the whole thing, i want to see what i'm doing? >> well, we have in place, in law, a 2% reduction on the payroll tax cut on the employee side through this year -- through the fiscal year, i believe. i think it's through this calendar -- i don't want to get too specific on that because i can't remember. but you're right, what congress passed in december and the president signed into law was just that. it's not the employer side, and it's not the increase -- the expansion that the president is calling for in the american jobs

act. and it doesn't include any of these other provisions. we need to take -- i don't think the american people are going to be satisfied with a message from congress that, well, we just wanted to think about it some more, because we understand you're suffering, we understand the economy is not growing, we understand that your teacher just laid off another dozen -- your school just laid off another dozen teachers, and that highway outside your city is crumbling, but we just want to wait a little longer. the congress has the capacity and the absolute need to act on the economy and jobs now. and again, as jack pointed out, if it passed the american jobs act in its entirety tomorrow, the pay-fors are there. they're cushioned so that if -- there's more money in there than is necessary to pay for the provisions, depending on how it's scored. donohueand then if the super committee does act, it can say, some we're going to make adjustments about how -- what the offsets are, it can certainly do that. but either way, the american jobs act is paid for. so there's no -- there's nothing inhibiting congress to act on this american jobs act.

the committee still needs to act. >> you're trying to say that if they wait another 10 weeks and deliberate together that the american people will lose jobs? there will not be jobs? >> i'm saying that every day congress doesn't act is a day lost in terms of the need to deal with our economy and deal with jobs, and it's another day of doubt that the american people have about whether washington can get its act together, whether congress can get its act together, and take on the issue that matters most to them, which is the economy and jobs. thank you, all. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> jay? [laughter]

>> you can read the full text of the president's jobs bill on our featured wheat section at -- featured link section at c- span.org. mckeon says he prefers tax increases. this is an hour. >> good morning everybody. it is an early monday morning, and you are our hard-working crew. thanks for joining us today.

we are very pleased to host mr. mckeon to give his talk about the military implications of september 11, and i find this it particularly apropos and we're having this conversation on september 12, because so much of the true implication of some of them borrow loveland has been military operations of the past 10 years. people keep talking about hound -- implications of some of this has had on the military -- september 11 has had on military operations of the past 10 years. it is altogether fitting and proper that we talk about not

only a what we have done over the past seven years. a year who has stayed the real cost -- who has paid the real cost and more importantly, where we are going. they have the first meetings, and that if nothing else is a large caliber loaded weapon pointed at the u.s. armed forces. the u.s. armed forces have gone through a lot of reductions since the cold war but more importantly in the last two or three years, and with another $600 billion or so staring them in the face, even while they are looking at the implications of the cuts in the act, it is enough to sober anybody.

secretary panetta has described the cuts as unacceptable. they will create extreme risk to u.s. security interests, and we should take those warnings very seriously. we will look ahead and forecast. even though we have enjoyed success on many of the battlefields, to say that the war for the greater middle east is over or even approaching being over would be highly misleading. we are gaining on it, but with iran on oppressive office of

developing nuclear weapons, it is on the down sides. with all kinds of los uncertainty not only in the united states about our finances and fiscal health and emotional state, those who have done an admirable job in carrying the war effort in via. -- in libya. it is one of those moments, and columnists are always fond of saying we are at a crossroads, but certainly this moment qualifies as a crossroads for the past would give way to a

future where the united states tries to preserve the peace and continues to exercise its power or one where we move into the crowd, leading from the mind -- from behind, as the president would have us say. i am pleased to have the chairman of the armed services committee is. i know it is a big committee, and the job of leading that committee is not an easy one, even in the best of times. and for bringing of policy may gain committee at a time where authorizing committees have faded into the background on

capitol hill, and nobody has carried the cross with greater strength than mr. mckeon. it is a project we are undertaking in the foreign policy institute, but supervisor kyl said if they cut any more he would resign from the commit date curiosa -- from the committee. i think that is a significant marker of were conservative minds are these days, and if there's one person who has recalled the conservatives to their fundamental peace through strength and ronald reagan

routes, it is mr. mckeon, so please help me welcome to this talk mr. mckeon. [applause] >> mr. mckeon has kindly agreed to hang around for a few questions after he is gone. i will take the moderator's prerogative to of the first question. >> a kind introduction. turn it on some of those about her work better? >> for years, the american enterprise institute has been a leading voice in defending both the prosperity and the borders

of the republic, and i thank you for that. you make the case so strongly that it has been said that you put the tank into think tank. i would especially like to thank you for the "defending defense" project you mentioned that you watched with the heritage foundation and the foreign policy initiative. there's probably nothing more important right now than in that project you are engaged in. the expertise you provide is a critical factor in this national debate. 10 years ago, 19 terrorist hijackers slipped past our defenses and changed the world. 10 years have passed since that yvette. we have seen a lot of reminders the last few days of what happened. i was asked by a reporter this morning what i was doing and how i remember it. i was just getting dressed. we live in north old town, and i was watching the tv, and i remember when the first plane hit and the speculation that it was an accident, what a tragedy. i watched as the second plane hit, and we knew right away that it was not an accident.

i hurried in finished dressing, called my staff, and they said, "don't come in. they are sending everybody home." as i went inside, a neighbor said, "they just hit the pentagon, you can see the smoke down the end of the st.." i went back in, and i spent the day watching on tv and calling our family spread at around the country to let them know that we were ok and trying to make heads or tails of what was happening. we heard about the plane going down in pennsylvania. later that afternoon, we were asked by the leadership to come to the capitol, and they let us on the front steps on the east side. there was lots of media. they gave it a short little announcements as to what was happening and it tried to let the people know to feel a

little calmness. justice they turned to walk away, somebody behind me started singing "god bless america." i have a little emotional problem. i was not able to sing. music hits me very quickly, and it was a very emotional time, very compelling time. it seemed like the country totally came together. i remember my first trip home after that. all the flags were flying on the cars, people hugging each other, in a good way, -- people honking at each other, in a good way, to remember this event. then we have had the 10 years since. where are you, john? i want to talk a little bit about what we've gotten to at

this point, the 10 years of war. but i really also want to talk about peace. i am concerned that over that 10 years, many of us have forgotten the cost of the national hubris we all felt on september 10. in 10 at short years, we've forgotten that we are vulnerable, that there are forces in the world that would do us harm, that there are actors on the world stage who would take advantage of our weakness. i am afraid that once again, we are sliding back to a place we pledged never to return to, and we are repeating the mistakes of september 10 america.

as we begin to emerge from a long, tough fight, this should be a time to reset and rebuild our military. instead, we all the warring our gloves -- we are lowering our gloves. at a time when our military is falling into disrepair, we have laid out cuts into pentagon spending. i cannot and a state out interest these defense cuts -- i cannot overstate how dangerous these defense cuts have become. the united states military has been saddled with a winning two tough wars and the libya operation. iraq and libya are winding down. the most important, afghanistan, remains a tough fight. while we place the burden of the securing afghanistan from terrorist infiltration on the shoulders of our armed forces, we also asked them to maintain global peace. we must reasonably ask the

question, who has done more for the sustainment of that peace -- the united nations or the united states military? the peace corps or the marine corps? it is not an accident at two of the 20th century's greatest advocates of a peaceful world were soldiers -- general george marshall and president dwight eisenhower. accepting the nobel prize for peace, general marshall said that a strong military posture was "and vitally important to build a dependable, long, enduring peace."

in the same address, the general sharply criticized the rapid drawdown after world war ii, arguing that the korean war was a direct result of that drawdown. marshall understood the folly of trying to harvest a peace dividend when there was no peace. so did president eisenhower. ike was called "the peace president," a warrior who hated war, but he also understood the wisdom of preparedness. in one of his first addresses to the american people, president eisenhower said, "as long as their purses a threat to freedom, free nations must at any cost remain armed, strong and ready for the risk of war." it is logical to ask after 10 years of conflict, is our military prepared to sustain peace in the next decade, much less the next century? do we keep our gloves up or do we drop them? and leaf and the colt stability

at the mercy of chance and good luck -- leave the global stability at the mercy of chance and good luck? the obama administration has left it at off guard, but it is not only the policies that as it made the world more dangerous place. the world has done that on its own trade dangers have worsened the past three years. when the calls come for fiscal restraint and discipline, this administration has repeatedly turned to its favorite target, our armed forces. that is not how you win the war, not how you sustain the peace, and it is absolutely not the way to pay off the debt. folks, it is impossible to pay the entitlement cap with the pentagon's credit card. we have tried. domestic spending has increased by nearly 20% of the first two years of this administration. military budgets are being cut by half a trillion dollars.

our debt continues to rise. this hurts the real heroes of an otherwise dim decade. the 9/11 generation is a bright light in a darkened tunnel. like the grandparents, when america was attacked, they formed ranks. there trumpet blast was a love of flag and love of freedom. they are our greatest legacy, they are our way forward. given the sacrifice, at how we treated them accordingly? this generation has clocked more time at more than any other in history. to hear of troops on their sixth or seventh deployment is not the exception. rather, it is the norm. recently we lost one of our finest, army sgt benjamin stevenson, a special forces

soldier, lost on his 10th deployment. i think is a problem when we are rotating soldiers in theater 10 times and at the same time discussing cuts to the military budget, as if they are just a bunch of numbers on a chalkboard. for a decade, americans have quietly gone about their lives in relative peace, immune to the sacrifices common of a wartime society. there have been at note rationing -- no ration, no war bonds, no evening blackouts. i remember as a young boys, the sacrifices made during world war ii. women did not have nylon stockings, we did not have real rubber, we were using artificial, synthetic rubber. i remember watching as i was standing with my mom and brother -- i was very little -- a group of tanks rolled down the boulevard as we were waiting

for the bus. we understood we were at war, and everybody contributed to that. we had meat rationing, all kinds of things that we don't even as a generation now understand. a dusty while in northern iraq bears the slogan written by a marine -- "america is not at war. the marine corps is at war. america is at the mall." a majority of americans have lived without being touched by the horrors of conflict. we are at the mall while the marines are in the mud. however we be paid their sacrifice?

through steady cuts -- how have we repaid the sacrifice? through steady cuts to the budget. the message we send to the troops is clear -- you are not our number one priority. it means higher deployment rates, less time to train, increased stress on both our military members and their families. the impact of those policies, ladies and gentlemen, is being felt. i had a young man that i have known since he was a young boy. he is a physician in the air force station it down in san antonio. he called me the other night and said, "buck, i am looking at my next reenlistment, and i'm wondering what is going to happen to my retirement. i have got 12 years in. should i stay or should i get out now?" i frankly cannot tell him, because of the uncertainty of

things we're looking at in washington. i said, "you know, i really cannot give you any advice right now other than to watch the news, talk to your dad, because i see him often, and we will try to keep you up to speed with what is going on." but our troops, america's greatest instrument of peace, are returning to a country where the unemployment rate for young veterans from iraq and afghanistan is a staggering 22%. on average, 18 at veterans today commit suicide. cases of post-traumatic stress disorder are soaring. i am a son of the greatest generation. i am a grandfather to the 9/11 generation. as long as i am chairman of the armed services committee, i will fight any effort to make their sacrifices the tragic legacy. we stand by our troops not just because it is the right thing to do. we needed this generation and

of those war years now more than ever -- we need this generation and those warriors more than ever. there was a time when american decline was discussed as an adult possibility. today we seemed resigned to that eventuality. air force general curtis lemay said that peace is our profession when he formed the mighty strategic air command of the 1960's. a lot of you young people don't remember when we had airplanes in the air 24 hours a day, seven days a week, constantly. when i went to grammar school, they used to teach us to dive under our desks, turned away from the windows, because we lived with the threat of nuclear attack. despite his nuclear command's

awesome capacity for violence, it was a profound wisdom in the motto --"power in benevolent hands is a virtue, not a vice." president obama's policies often seemed reflective of an ideology that treats american power it as a principal adversary, not ally, to world peace. that flies in the face of both history and experience, and it resigns as to national decline. in the federalist papers, alexander hamilton spoke of the necessity of a capable military to defend the liberties enshrined in the constitution. president reagan had the courage to make hamilton's insight global. he recognize the profound wisdom in making peace america's profession.

but he also understood that he's never comes to powers that lie dormant and withdrawn -- peace never comes to power is that lie dormant and withdrawn. the all the way to have peace is to proliferate power. reagan restored faith in our military. by doing so, he restored faith in our ideals and ultimately the american experience. what made reagan so pioneering is that he truly believed that liberty should not be a luxury reserved for well-off western powers. he in addition to the united states military as something more than a barricade -- he envisioned as the united states military is something more than a barricade against the soviet military trade he envisioned it as a tool to make a well -- make the world a better place and he did so without firing a single shot at the evil empire. the threat of the soviet union, we hope, has faded away. but a new danger is blooming in the far east trade last month,

my committee received a report from the defense department by chinese military power. it was frightening, even more so considering that the report came from an administration that has gone to great lengths to avoid upsetting our neighbors in beijing. the fact is, china keeps our admirals' up at night, and for good reason. any historian worth his salt knows that massive military buildups and chest-thumping speeches about national destiny is a dangerous combination. the pentagon report outlined a country that has emboldened with new-found military might and drug with economic power. the chinese are convinced that they have been given an opening with our current financial crisis. for the first time in history, beijing believes they can achieve military parity with the

united states. they are building stealth fighters and submarines. their navy has grown larger than our own. they are sending warships into the territorial waters of our allies. they hacked our government computers daily and intimidate our friends in the pacific rim. we need to get smart about preserving that peace. consider the state of our armed forces at the end of the cold war. our military shrank at a staggering rate. today, that contraction is accelerating. our incoming chief of naval operations recently testified that he needed almost 400 ships to meet the navy's broad set of missions.

well, we had a nearly 550-ship fleet in 1992. today, we are projected to drop 250. at the end of the cold war, we had 76 combat brigades. today we have 45. we had 82 fighter squadrons. today we have a 39. our bomber fleet is so old, some air force pilots are flying the exact same planes their grandfathers' of flu. that is to be expected when the last b-52, the backbone of our bomber fleet, rolled off the assembly line during the cuban missile crisis. marines out flown far past the number of flight hours and they were designed for, while the administration holds talks about canceling the replacement jet, f-35b, after we cancel to the new amphibious assault vehicle, by the way. many of our f-15's have the same problem. the stresses of combat have doubled the number of a flight hours the aircraft were designed to sustain come up with some of his is projecting another 4000- 8000 hours required of these

overworked air frames. over 20% of our navy ships are not ready to sail or fight. 40% of that fleet goes to war with some structural problem. budget cuts are not just preventing us from building our navy. we need to keep our shores safe. marine corps stockpiles of crucial equipment such as radios and generators face severe shortages. they need a minimum of $12 billion to reset the forces after the war ends. that number will also grow in number. in marine general recently testified in front of my

committee that if america had in other military emergency, they could only respond to the central area command of operations. that is it. if something happened in the pacific, do not bother calling the marines. many units are flying at the ragged edge. the vice chief of the army said we did not have adequate resources to fulfil the army's basic operational needs. these problems will intensify as projected budget cuts start to take their toll. the sword hanging over the congressional super committee. this committee was designed to tackle mandatory spending, with a larger trigger that will force automatic cuts should they fail to reach an agreement.

50% of the mandatory cuts are from the defense department. 50%. that is a deeply unbalanced number with defense accounting for less than 20% of federal spending. the trigger would not just cut our military, it would close it for business. the white house and congressional democrats insisted on that defense number for one purpose -- to force republicans to choose from raising taxes or cutting defense. that gamesmanship is unacceptable -- or gutting defense. biden's from the white house would direct cuts. recent statements indicate the administration could be pushing

for defense cuts near the size and scope of the trigger within the confines of the super committee. those cuts would open the door to aggression. our ability to respond to an attack would be severely crippled. the fragile globalized economy would be left at the mercy of uncertainty and doubt. there is some who think we can't retreat within our borders, as if isolationism was something, somehow the grand solution to our current economic and strategic woes. it is wrong to think the atlantic and pacific oceans are still sufficient to protect america's borders. september 11 taught us that.

we had an isolationist foreign policy and defense posture. it is wrong to think removing the security we provide for a globalized economy will somehow increase prosperity. the crown of global leadership is heavy and expensive. our military's positive role as a defender of global peace -- we fight for liberty and freedom. we have seen the world without a strong america -- millions dead during world war i and ii. 10 years after the september 11 attacks come we inherited a potent military and a new greatest generation.

our country is wetted to their legacey. i believe in the power of the american dream. i do believe our best days are ahead of us. our military is the modern era's greatest champion of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. it is time to focus our fiscal constraint on the driver of our debt, not the protector of our prosperity. thank you. [applause] >> to live very much, mr. mckeon -- thank you very much. if you could hang on. i would like to tease you with

a couple of questions to begin with. i was struck by the connection is made between the steps we are in and the prospect of our military. and china's increasing assertiveness, not to say aggressiveness. the conventional wisdom has been since the end of the cold war that if we treat china as an enemy, it will become an enemy. it seems that the order is reversed. china is driven by its own internal sense of its own destiny, as you say. can you -- one of the things that we're having a hard time doing in the current political

moment is connecting the cuts to something that might happen in the real world. there is the category of risk that the defense department and leadership loves -- the way they used to address these things, as though there were a giant risk leader in the sky and if we could calibrate it, we could thread the needle and everything would be happy. as you see the effect of these cuts may be and have observed the pattern of chinese behavior, can you spin out a scenario or imagine how these two trend lines might ultimately cross and what the consequences might be if in fact the marine corps was unable to respond to

a contingency in the pacific or the navy was insufficiently able to respond. would be the consequences and will be so bad about sharing the responsibility in securing east asia or maritime asia in conjunction with the chinese? >> that is a good question. all of these cuts have been cutting -- coming at us in a rapid-fire, escalating effect, but they are all talked about is just numbers. secretary gates went to the chiefs and said we need $100

million in efficiencies. find those and you will be able to keep those. they had found those and he said, they found the $100 billion and we were able to tell and that they will keep 7 $4 billion. -- $74 billion. we found more cuts department wide. he had been given speeches that were needed to keep a 1% increase in the defense budget just to keep up. the $70 billion -- the $78 billion eliminated that. what our committee is going to do in the next few weeks is to focus on what these numbers -- numbers on a chalkboard -- what

we're going to do is say, with these kind of cuts, this is what is going to happen. the reduction in strength could be accelerated up to 100,000 as early as next year to achieve the same savings there are talking about in 2013. this is massive. i met with the ambassador from the amount of a couple of days ago. he was talking about china's forays into the china sea. we met with the leadership in singapore. they were concerned about china's sea. we have progressed -- retrogressed much since that

time. there are been some incidents where china has confronted vietnam's and have taken the position that the china sea is theirs. that would make vietnam landlocked. this says all the frontage on the china sea. turnover the china sea to chinese control. then you have it country like vietnam that would consider itself landlocked. this is very worrisome. we talk about having a navy that the smaller than it has been an eddie time since world war i -- then it has been at any time since world war i. i do not think the world looks at those in vietnam's neighborhood and china's neighborhood.

they look at us as more interested in maintaining the peace. the look at china as more dominant and wanting control. we have to be cognizant of this and not wanting to let that go any further. >> i have one more question. you were the chairman of the committee and are deeply experienced in defense matters and a practicing politician. it is an honorable trade. no need to apologize for that. you laid out the political conundrum of the super committee that the country faces at this point and the tactic to make conservatives and republicans choose between their commitment between a strong defense and a desire to not

raise taxes. it is ironic that nobody expects democrats to stand up for defense. the truman democrats, people like ike skelton are pretty thin on the ground these days. there's been a change for an uncertainty that hovers over the republican party and the conservatives. you have been devoting a lot of time to helping to bring along and educate particularly the new members of the committee and members of the house.

if you could u.s. a quick situation report on or the mind of your colleagues is at this moment. it was quite striking to see the turn at the we had last week including people like allen west, who was impeccable tea party political credentials. not quite going as far as senator kyl. but the process of the super committee. if you could give us some insight. >> the way the super committee was set up -- they were given a charge to come up with additional savings. there's a base amount that is written and. my committee has come up with the same numbers. that really is about $465 billion of cuts. if they don't find other savings equal to the $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion, the default trigger would cause that to be

-- to also have another $500 trillion in cuts to get up to that number. if they are successful, those cuts are already excessive. if they do not reach that goal, which probably would have to be accomplished through cuts -- the intel opprobriums -- the entitlement programs, then we look at this additional $500 billion in cuts, which the military could not sustain and we cannot continue to have anywhere near the military that we have now. i am meeting shortly with

senator kyl to go over this with him. wendy's 87 republican freshmen came to washington, many of them said everything has to be on the table. defense along with everything else. under president reagan, he talked about the conservatives have a three-legged stool that helped our coalition together. there were fiscal responsibility conservatives. if you keep all that in mind, you have a nice steady stool. because of the way our debt has substantial increase over the

past few years, there is real desire to get that taken care of. the fiscal responsibility leg, we have not lost the defense leg or the social leg. but now things are out of balance. and so people are ready to cut defense. i think we have crossed the line to where i think everybody understands you have $700 billion said spending at the pentagon, there should be a way to find savings. every tax dollar should be taking care of. when you go too far, it goes too far. we have to watch very carefully and look for ways to save on spending at the pentagon, but also make sure our defense is not weakened.

of the 13 freshmen on the armed services committee, they feel we of past this point, and we cannot sustain any further cuts. a lot of these freshmen now feel that. this has been coming so quickly. it is hard to digest it all. there is a time when enough is enough and we have passed that line. >> we will go for audience questions in the right to left order. wait for the microphone. please remember the rules -- wait for the microphone, state your name, and make your statement in the form of a question. >> thank you for your remarks. my question is this -- pressure was the united states to provide them with guarantees

about the nuclear arsenal. do you think the congress would be receptive to the idea of a legally binding agreement? having discussed this issue? -- have you discussed this issue? >> senator kyl has a lot of questions about this. one thing he demanded be in the budget was enough money to modernize our missiles, our nuclear capabilities so that not that we are planning on using them, but to make sure we have a deterrent in the fact -- in effect. our concern is the administration takes an

approach that cuts our nuclear capability without having made sure that we have sufficient deterrent in place. this is something that we are going to continue to watch very carefully. i do not know if that answers your question, but that's where we are. >> let's go with the gentleman next to you. >> i'm from "newsweek." the think the house committee leadership shares your vision? could you support some tax increases to save the defense budget? >> i hope they share my conviction. i believe they do. the speaker came and met with

our committee. he said the alternative would be so bad that they would be forced to be successful in their endeavors. i didn't know that anybody totally shares my commitments. by nature, the calling you get and i probably am more aware of everything going on in this area where the speaker and the other leaders have a broader responsibility. it is my job to make sure that they are aware of all the consequences. the second part of the question, what i support a tax increase? i have never voted for a tax increase. i do not plan on voting for a

tax increase. this is just me and this is probably a good way to lose an election, but that's not the reason i'm here. if i had only two choice a tax increase or cut defense, i would go to strengthen defense. >> what is the likelihood that democratic tax increases are going to go to pay for military budgets rather than preserving entitlements? the young lady with her hand up in the third row. >> thank you. to what extent are you concerned about the ongoing defense cuts in europe? do you share the assessment by robert gates by increasing the unsustainability about nato?

>> i have met with the counterpart to are secretary of defense, and i also met with the prime minister. they have made very drastic cuts in their defense. but their defense are ready is very small compared to what they used to be. the part of the speech with cutout talked a little bit about how england had to cut back so far after world war ii and put most of their money into social spending. we see the problems they are having with that now. they are on an unsustainable path with their programs.

they are continuing to cut their defense. when i see the size of their military -- they are helping us as much as they can in afghanistan and they are good, firm, strong allies, but they're just not much help based on the size of their military and what they are able to put into their military, and further cuts make it harder. i am very concerned. we went into libya, nato could not carry out that operation. they cannot carry that out without us. we are the one superpower that can be the help throughout the world to keep peace.

we have the capability and the abilities if we do not cut ourselves to the point where we cannot. >> we could squeeze in a few more if we are brutally efficient. this man had his hand up. .

. .

. .

>> is this a time to have a process by which 11 million people who are not in the system combativeness system when americans cannot find a job? is a priority of immigration reform -- correct? >> it is important that we have immigration reform to those people. the american workforce. if you have 10 million people whom it is more difficult to protect them under labor laws, that ends up undercutting the work force. when the president talks about it as an economic imperative he is talking about that all workers have the same protection

and the level playing field. and he is talking about the industry. all across the country, the business and industry who are clamoring for reform because there understand how a important it is to their success. we heard from the agricultural sector. these folks want their people to be here legally. we need to make sure all of the work is done legally. >> it is almost as a goat to the gas station and they do not pay taxes. the grocery store, the rent, they do not pay property tax. they pay billions and billions of dollars in taxes cannot access any of the programs those tax dollars pay for. if you look at our economy, 12 million people -- i know what

they're going to do. with all of the impediments that exist in terms of economic ingenuity, we see them. many will buy more homes. >> there are 14 million people who do not have a job. >> united farm workers set up an employment agency that said if you want to pick the garlic, there is a job for you. no one showed up to pick tomatoes. [applause] no one is going to show up to do some of those fundamental jobs. you and i see them. we sit down for dinner and a -- [speaking spanish]

it is fundamental. nobody cares. [applause] they just want a nice bed. those are the jobs we are willing to do. i am ready to say that those are jobs. jobs my children hopefully have been educated. god bless them they're there to do that. [applause] >> let me share two examples. you have major operations in california that have moved to mexico to grow produce. what is ironic is many of the people who oppose immigration reform support order security. i would like to see explained how it is good to start growing the food of this country outside of our borders.

on the -- microsoft open a plant in vancouver, canada. they created 1500 jobs there. we cannot import enough. here we find ourselves in a recession. we're sending scaups to mexico and high skill jobs to canada. this does not make sense during this time for this country for us to outsource. >> the case has been made that the economy should be in a catalyst for reform. if you look at the center for american progress they will tell you that growth will rose by one point -- 1.5 trillion dollars if we had immigration reform. even in this economy, this difficult economy, there are whole sectors which are

critical that cannot find an american worker who is willing to do that work. it is critical for the services they produce. they give the underpinnings of the higher-paying jobs a so taking care of the hotel room leaves the hotel manager, the concierge, the restaurant and all of those higher paying jobs the ability to attract -- attract people so that in the seafood industry, those working the ships. the list goes on and on. it is about performers. new jersey, people do not think of it is the garden state but that is our name. we have farming interests. farmers tell me you have to get immigration problem resolved. we cannot get people to work. there are whole sectors of our

economy even with this difficulty of finding employment in which you cannot find people willing to do the jobs. if you do not want to depress the wages of all workers in the united states, you do not want an underclass second be exploited. you want to have people out of the darkness and into the light, fully engaged, paying their taxes and for those who do not have the social security card, fully engaged in the economy where they will contribute. you will not seek depression. that is all reasons why the economy is not an obstacle to reform should be a catalyst. >> every party of this administration has been about put in the economy back on a solid footing. we're trying to build the economy of the future. you cannot do not on a broken immigration system.

>> we are going to understand that even with the robust -- there are still alive and million undocumented workers. >> there are more undocumented people in the united states then the citizens of hungry. -- hungary. >> your costing the future. [speaking spanish] today we're here because of the importance the law house for the community. >> let me ask you a question i probably shouldn't and i will anyway. explain to me why, during the first two years of the obama administration when you were in the majority, why didn't we get

anything brought to all of these different organizations? [applause] why wasn't anything past? why didn't we hear the president, i thought his speech the other day was a good speech. why did we hear him say passed this bill 72,000 times like immigration? >> i was with the republicans in the senate with a bipartisan group. i have heard him say it many times. every immigration reform has been pande partisan. it has needed members on both sides of the aisle. we've never had 100% of a democratic caucus.

at the end of the day, we heard him say to the senate caucus. i do not need you to come halfway. neg to come some of the way. i need a handful of those who've been there before. i know you are for this. before it now. we do not have the support we need. we need to get to it. >> i heard the audience applauded but there is a reality. the reality is that when barack obama took office this country was on the verge of a depression. a new depression. no one fully understood the nature of it. if you look at the hbo movie teakettle big to fail" it is clear. the focus was the economy. had we get it working for all

americans? had we stop a depression? how do we try to ensure that every american has health care? at the same time, sicilian points out a good point. as we have those challenges in the senate's even with the majority, if you need 60 votes. what we grow up learning about a groups of makes majority, that is not the case. one senator, yet several who would clearly be very opposed to immigration reform. when i first entered the senate to hear people saying those people. i said, are you referring to me? i think i am part of those people. one senator willing to filibuster creates a hurdle in which not 51 votes of 100 but 60

of 100 have to be achieved. that is the reality. when we lost, we do not have 60 votes. we only temporarily had the 60 votes. we were dealing with economic reform. the bottom line is in the senate, unless we get 60 votes, you cannot pass anything. a combination of the challenges. i have been pressuring the president says there would pressure any president. in public and in private. the bottom line is i have to recognize that he had a nation that was on the verge of going into a depression. that would not have served anyone well. >> either agree -- i agree

that was a consideration. we pass financial reform without republicans. i think it does a disservice to our community and to what has been established as a civil rights issue to say that must be bipartisan. we have not said any other issue needs to be bipartisan. when all hope was lost for reforming the health-care system, when there were no republicans. there was little or no public support, the president said -- what we are looking for is not so much that it did not get done. offical of the reason people

collapsed is we did not see this champion we sent to the white house to be a champion for our community. [applause] i say that because, look, or latinos voted in 2008 and 2004. we carried florida and colorado. we carried the white house. nearly 70% of latinos voted. one of the principal issues that generated enthusiasm was the hope that one day the least among us, the immigrant is the one that is always, always being abused. so he could live as all of us lives. i want to say that that is where we were at. i have to tell you something.

i am going to work very hard to get this president reelected. because we have to put things in context. i watched you at the debate. if you watched the debate you know that we have no presence. i'm going to work because a part of it is challenging friends. it is difficult. we wake in the morning not to challenge your friends but for love. that is part of human nature. it is difficult. we challenged our friends. i said, president, [speaking spanish] i want to be appreciative of that also. >> i want to give you a chance to respond.

>> thank you. these are conversations we have. they are important. we understand how vital this situation is. i cannot tell you the number of times i've sat in meetings on a variety of issues including this one, energy, a lot of things, where people say, if you just speak about it more. the man gives a good speech. he says he is a forceful leader. at the same time, he was elected president and not made king. he does not have the capacity to fulfill this promise. he is serious but in order to get there is going to take all of us. it will take some support.

>> the national discourse is vaward over and over again. how'd you change the discussion? if it is good for the economy, it is a way of recognizing there is a huge country inside the country with people that are invisible. what steps could america take to change that dialogue and make the discourse more about human beings and their reality regarding the country? then amnesty or open borders, all of these words there tainted with other thoughts -- >> i want to challenge your premise. i do not think it should be about human beings. i think it should be about consequences. 80% of the 17,000 agencies in united states have the vacancies

they have trouble filling. the fbi has lowered their standards. we now have shortages and virtually every city in the state of texas. they cannibalize off of each other. the senator talked about when there is not people to pick crops and serve your mills. when i would like to point out is when there's someone who is been in a gang that is working at your police department or when 40% of the assembling line industry workers are eligible for retirement next year because we are in several wars and we have an aging air force fleet, and a 51% of the customs and border patrol agents are eligible for retirement next year. the next time someone says we need more boots on the ground, ask them where they plan to come

from. >> just some thoughts on -- people listen to different people. members of congress, bankers. they look up to musicians and people who come into their homes. how do you deal with this issue in your life? >> when you come into this country and you are an illegal immigrant, you live day-by-day. you try to make day-by-day. what i tried to do throughout my career is be in example that it is possible. this is the country where you can make your dreams come true. even in the middle of the not knowing what is going to happen tomorrow. even in the midst of your parents being deported.

not knowing if you're going to get legal status. i think today, just by listening to you, i want to believe that this is more possible than ever. 1978 was a different story. between ronald reagan and here. that is the honest truth. i would love for that to continue. this is a country where everybody would come in and give their best to make the best of what they have. >> how you handle the fact that pair are a lot of people here illegally. the border is anything but safe. i've been to the border in arizona. they say don't have the right to not have people come to my

property? hundreds of them back home may have chopped off somebody's head? they are related to this narcotics terrorism inside mexico. the people on the border have one side of a coin. they say, why don't we close the border. every country has the right. they're doing it in europe. we cannot get past that. you and i talk about it. and of this whole panel, there are only too well, then on. the senator was poetic yesterday. back to the question, it seems that there are two different assignments on immigration. one side says, the ranchers have

all the right to say i do not want a person who cuts heads off. you have other people who are doing the jobs no one else wants to do. >> there is a way in which this debate is all here. we get in this kind of zone when immigration comes up. when you talk about amnesty, people use that word all the time. if you look at an immigrant -- nobody is proposing an amnesty. it is a tool. >> nobody has proposed that. >> if you look at the metric for trying to have this debate based on domestics, something empirical, there are more resources than ever in our history. crime in border communities, for

on the u.s. and-mexico border. there is conversation happening between a congressman and other officials who were same we have to do more at the border. we have to control crime. order you talking about? it is low. if you look at the numbers. if you look at the metrics. we are doing a better job at the borders than ever. for those who say we are to take care of the border, our response is, let's give started. we're doing our job at the border. let's reform the law so we have a rational system. we do not people to engage in stock -- in this debate out of the goodness of their heart. you have to do that for the you or our economy. this is what we need to get on

solid economic footing. [applause] >> i go back to the results promised that we need to refrained the debate. when we talk about people it is easy to get emotional. if you set in motion aside and you look at the statistics and the figures and the date and the mattress, the fbi says that all pass so is the second-biggest city in the united states. about a month ago usa today came out with a front-page story about border violence. according to the fbi data, you are more likely to be a victim of crime 50 miles inland from the border than on the border. in texas with a river that separates us. >> it is tough to put a wall up there. >> the government has done that. in a pass so and parts of the

grand valley. it put the fence up 2 miles inland which creates a no-man's land. we have a bird sanctuary that schools will no longer send children to. we are all sorts of logistical problems. that is why you have to look at it. when the fence was built, we tried to ask about the consequences. theas, we're going to build s and wave every the bill or whatever ramification exists. it was full steam ahead and they built the thing. now a spent billions on the fence. illegal entries are higher now than before the fence was built. >> i agree you have to change the debate. all of the economic issues, national security, our friends talk about security.

i cannot secure america as i do not know who is here. you cannot do that unless you bring people lot of darkness into light and go through a criminal background check. we might be able to have that be done. economics for all of the iterations have been discussed. i think the one thing -- and i would hope police would agree -- next year there is a national conversation. is called an election. elections have consequences. so, unless there are 218 votes to pass something unless there are 60 votes in the senate on a controversial issues, which conspire all we want but we will not achieve those votes. if this is the civil rights issue of our time, which i believe it is, then each and

every latino should be asking anyone from the canvas on either side of the aisle to the candidates from the senate to the candidates for the house of representatives, the questions you asked all of the presidential candidates. >> i was criticized for acting. >> the question is simple. what is your position on dealing with all of the 11 million people who are undocumented? if you put any candidate to that test and you say that your vote will determine -- their answer will determine how you vote. we're going to change the dynamics in addition to the language.

i do not believe our community is there. they do not trust them as they should. if they did in made it clear, any candidate who wants to win the next election is going to come through the latino community. the electoral votes necessary to win the presidency are overwhelmingly with a latino population. other states and more marginal, for determining the balance of the house, it is going to be critical. if we believe this and believe that it is a civil rights issue, we need to do what others in the nation's history did is to ensure success and triumph. that is putting everyone to the test as your number one priority. >> a thing that could be an important test. we have worked hard to make

sure that we can speak because we have challenged our own president and party. we challenged our own leadership. there is this huge silence on the other side of anybody challenging the republican party. i am very clear about the consequences and where i will be in the next election. having challenged my party, i've heard a deafening silence from the other side. when you ask michele bachman about immigration, she said they have to learn english like they did in the 1950's. they have to know about of the constitution. they have to have a job like they did in the 1950's. > has she ever been to way

citizenship swearing-in? you are still on the 1950's. we need to bring you into the modern times. [applause] at the same time, i am to stand what our rules and responsibilities. i want to say something that i think is critical about where we are going. if our community is going to come out to vote, there has to be leaders with credibility that can engage them and ask them to engage. here is what i think is important. i saw tv anchors of a waiting for congress to act. then i watched you. i listen to people from the media.

i heard politicians who said there is nothing we can do. then i heard the eloquence. you missed it. the eloquence and the firmness with which bob menendez argued for the issue of the undocumented in those terms. i heard his voice. part of what we have to understand is that there needs to be some separation. we have to challenge our party. civil-rights is more important than a political party. when i look at i say to myself, while. i want to be unreliable.

you hear reliable and you get -- you get to gives the state dinner. i do not want that kind of reliability. we need leaders who are unreliable to the power structures but responds to the powers in the community which there represent. [applause] i want to say that sitting here at this table, you have a responsibility to help those who come become american citizens become american citizens. 500,000 latinos turn 18 every year. they are american citizens. are you engaging them and making sure there graduating from high school and committed to this movement? look, even the promise of

today, immigration reform and the dream act. the dream act is immigration reform. if you allow which, they will separate them. they will say, for your children, ok. before their parents, nothing. that is an acceptable. -- unacceptable. >> are our steps and faces. -- there are steps and phases. >> we will take them when they're available to us. we should understand that -- i introduced a reform bill with senator kennedy. it was bipartisan. [speaking spanish]

the dream act was an integral part of comprehensive reform. i hope as we move forward we do not allowed people to divide our a clean -- community. i am happy. when i saw that the administration was changing its view of how they were going to deal with young people. toead it they're not going be deported. i am thankful. >> we have to wrap it up soon but who else is unreliable? [laughter] >> not you. [laughter] you are very unreliable. [applause]

>> i have not seen that limousine ride he is talking about. >> can i take one quick second to? luis is right about one thing. [applause] [laughter] no, he is right about a lot. i meant to the last point. i want to refocus because you responded we should take steps. but here is the deal. the same power structures are a very happy to define this -- divide us. say yes toy happy to the agricultural workers but note to everybody else. they're happy to say let's get the high-tech visas changed but

forget about everything else. that is dangerous. we keep talking about comprehensive. we cannot do that if all of the elements crumble. the challenge is to take opportunities when they come to give people relief. but by the same token, if you want to let a millions behind, then be divided. in this question of immigration, it is critical. >> address -- luis thinks willingham people who are reliable. but a guy who i work for was a community organizer. he understands how important it is to keep everybody's feet to the fire. that is your job. you should do that.

but, all of the things that matter on immigration in jobs, which you hear the president say over and over again is that people collected their officials to come to this town and moves things forward and make things change. he is out there fighting everyday to make sure we can get the ball across the finish line. >> to be fair, i have had more off the record conversations with the president than with any other leader. he does here from people like me what the community is saying and thinking. he hears from people like me and also from everyday people. there have been a lot of things and he has had which breaks the mold of how other presidents have done. i'm not taking a political side. i am saying the reality. i have been able to tell him things to his face. it is tough to say the things i

hear on the street. people are frustrated. there's one issue i want to talk to you about. it seems to me that on both sides of the equation, there are all these other interests like work permits. bringing people in. and some union is going to be upset if we bring in people and give them work permits. the other side is, we cannot talk about immigration reform unless the border is 100% closed. when you're in the white house behind closed doors, what he required to make it a closed border? they give you a list and then it changes. on both sides this seems as well unless you are unreliable, the reliable side of both sides is not have an interest in cv -- seeing real reform for their own small minded reasons.

>> we are going to win this fight when we make clear to everyone there are consequences. i want to reiterate that i know and i concede -- speak for myself and members of the congressional caucus. i am pleased and honored to be able to say i have been in the room was senator bob men endez. things to not go well. but what i want to say is looked at the community of people. no one gets the defense if. i am trying to explain the situation. i came to the congress and the first thing i did was put in legislation to freeze everyone's salary.

i came to change this place. to the extent our community understands this is the civil rights issue. people have to come out to vote and elect legislators. that is -- it is a defining moment. what did you do, how much did you do, and what priority did you give this issue in your life? we have a great group of people working in washington, d.c. i enjoy being in our program because you really bring out a lot of the issues that are importance to our community. i enjoy working with everyone on this panel to make sure we get comprehensive immigration. bob says there is a referendum. there is one next november. which is going to be the best

instrument and a vehicle to achieving the goal of getting the dreamers? how do you get them back green card and work permit so they are here legitimately in the united states of america? how do we get all of the other millions of people to be fully integrated into the fabric of our society? as soon as we are in the back right turn on my ipad. i paid for a period i have been listening to his music. i love your music. i know there is a social message in your music. thank you. >> i have to wrap this up. >> just to the notion that we have to have border security first in order to of immigration reform, i'm going to challenge

that. if yavapai the person your kitchen, where sending in more people with knobs. the way you fix it is to fix the ply. you do that by having immigration reform. you can hire as many border patrol is you want. it does not stop the need for people to come here because we need them to run our economy. we can either pass immigration reform and give workers or weaken follow the way of russia. russia population decreases every year. they have a new holiday of procreation where everyone goes home. they do their patriotic duty. [laughter] >> luis just signed a tour of

russia. [laughter] >> i don't know where to go after that. >> babies are going to be made. that is the name of the tour. [laughter] >> let's look at mexico. the merc -- the fertility rate was 70. >> dorsal talking fertility? talking still fertility? [laughter] >> the very defense we're building to keep people out, those people are going to stop coming in because of all of the changes in mexico.

>> there is still the right to not have people going through their property. >> i have to wrap it up so i would like to ask you some final thoughts. >> we need to give the the dreamers the tools to be able to make that dream come true. that is what i can say and that to this conversation. for me, as it is for a lot of hispanics trying to make a better life, give them the tools. we are a great example of how incredibly full of talent and energy, faith, light, [ds speaking spanish]

this country is built on immigrants. i believe we are not a minority. [spanish] >> i want to say that this is something that in the midst of our daily lives we lose track of the importance of people. if, and when, when we get to a comprehensive immigration reform, worsens whose name will go down in history of having made it possible is a person who has used enormous personal political capital at all costs to drive this issue in a way and i have not seen someone in the congress tried in a long time. his name is luis.

i want everybody to know that. [applause] >> it is a pleasure. the first guest i ever had. every time the community has mastered speak she has come even in difficult stamp -- moments to take the difficult questions. thank you for sharing this dialogue with all of us. thank all of you. we hope you feel incentivize to continue on some issues that need dealing with from a united front. we need your support. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> on today's "washington journal," the glam born on the defense budget. then nick rahall on a funding for transportation programs. then a new report on childhood and vaccines from the institute of medicine. that is at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >>, president obama on his jobs plan and efforts to encourage congress to pass the bill. he was joined by teachers, police officers, and firefighters. this is just under 15 minutes.

>> please, everybody, have a seat, on this beautiful morning. it's wonderful to see all of you here. on thursday, i told congress that i'll be sending them a bill called the american jobs act. well, here it is. [applause] this is a bill that will put people back to work all across the country. this is the bill that will help our economy in a moment of national crisis. this is a bill that is based on ideas from both democrats and republicans. and this is the bill that congress needs to pass. no games. no politics. no delays. i'm sending this bill to congress today, and they ought to pass it immediately. [applause] standing with me this morning are men and women who will be helped by the american jobs act. i'm standing with teachers. all across america, teachers are being laid off in droves --

which is unfair to our kids, it undermines our future, and it is exactly what we shouldn't be doing if we want our kids to be college-ready and then prepared for the jobs of the 21st century. we've got to get our teachers back to work. [applause] let's pass this bill and put them in the classroom where they belong. [applause] i'm standing here with veterans. we've got hundreds of thousands of brave, skilled americans who fought for this country. the last thing they should have to do is to fight for a job when they come home. so let's pass this bill and put the men and women who served this nation back to work. [applause] we're standing here with cops and firefighters whose jobs are threatened because states and communities are cutting back. this bill will keep cops on the beat, and firefighters on call. so let's pass this bill so that these men and women can

continue protecting our neighborhoods like they do every single day. [applause] i'm standing with construction workers. we've got roads that need work all over the country. our highways are backed up with traffic. our airports are clogged. and there are millions of unemployed construction workers who could rebuild them. so let's pass this bill so road crews and diggers and pavers and workers -- they can all head back to the jobsite. there's plenty of work to do. this job -- this jobs bill will help them do it. let's put them back to work. let's pass this bill rebuilding america. [applause] and there are schools throughout the country that desperately need renovating. we cannot -- got an "amen" over there. [laughter and applause] we can't expect our kids to do their best in places that are literally falling apart. this is america.

every kid deserves a great school -- and we can give it to them. pass this bill and we put construction crews back to work across the country repairing and modernizing at least 35,000 schools. i'm standing here with small business owners. they know that while corporate profits have come roaring back, a lot of small businesses haven't. they're still struggling -- getting the capital they need, getting the support they need in order to grow. so this bill cuts taxes for small businesses that hire new employees and for small businesses that raise salaries for current employees. it cuts your payroll tax in half. and all businesses can write off investments they make this year and next year. [applause] instead of just talking about america's job creators, let's actually do something for america's job creators. we can do that by passing this bill. [applause] now, there are a lot of other ways that this jobs bill, the american jobs act, will help

this economy. it's got a $4,000 tax credit for companies that hire anybody who spent more than six months looking for a job. we've got to do more for folks who've been hitting the pavement every single day looking for work, but haven't found employment yet. that's why we need to extend unemployment insurance and connect people to temporary work to help upgrade their skills. this bill will help hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged young people find summer jobs next year -- jobs that will help set the direction for their entire lives. and the american jobs act would prevent taxes from going up for middle-class families. if congress does not act, just about every family in america will pay more taxes next year. and that would be a self- inflicted wound that our economy just can't afford right now. so let's pass this bill and give the typical working family a $1,500 tax cut instead. [applause]

and the american jobs act is not going to add to the debt -- it's fully paid for. i want to repeat that. it is fully paid for. [laughter] it's not going to add a dime to the deficit. next week, i'm laying out my plan not only to pay for this jobs bill but also to bring down the deficit further. it's a plan that lives by the same rules that families do -- we've got to cut out things that we can't afford to do in order to afford the things that we really need. it's a plan that says everybody -- including the wealthiest americans and biggest corporations -- have to pay their fair share. [applause] the bottom line is, when it comes to strengthening the economy and balancing our books, we've got to decide what our priorities are. do we keep tax loopholes for oil companies -- or do we put teachers back to work? should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires --

or should we invest in education and technology and infrastructure, all the things that are going to help us out- innovate and out-educate and out-build other countries in the future? we know what's right. we know what will help businesses start right here and stay here and hire here. we know that if we take the steps outlined in this jobs plan, that there's no reason why we can't be selling more goods all around the world that are stamped with those three words "made in america." that's what we need to do to create jobs right now. [applause] i have to repeat something i said in my speech on thursday. there are some in washington who'd rather settle our differences through politics and the elections than try to resolve them now. in fact, joe and i, as we were walking out here, we were looking at one of the washington newspapers and it was quoting a republican aide saying, "i don't know why we'd

want to cooperate with obama right now. it's not good for our politics." that was very explicit. >> it was. >> i mean, that's the attitude in this town -- "yeah, we've been through these things before, but i don't know why we'd be for them right now." the fact of the matter is the next election is 14 months away. and the american people don't have the luxury of waiting 14 months for congress to take action. [applause] folks are living week to week, paycheck to paycheck. they need action. and the notion that there are folks who would say, we're not going to try to do what's right for the american people because we don't think it's convenient for our politics -- we've been seeing that too much around here. and that's exactly what folks are tired of. and that's okay, when things are going well, you play politics.

it's not okay at a time of great urgency and need all across the country. these aren't games we're playing out here. folks are out of work. businesses are having trouble staying open. you've got a world economy that is full of uncertainty right now -- in europe, in the middle east. some events may be beyond our control, but this is something we can control. whether we not -- whether or not we pass this bill, whether or not we get this done, that's something that we can control. that's in our hands. you hear a lot of folks talking about uncertainty in the economy. this is a bit of uncertainty that we could avoid by going ahead and taking action to make

sure that we're helping the american people. so if you agree with me, if you want congress to take action, then i'm going to need everybody here and everybody watching -- you've got to make sure that your voices are heard. help make the case. there's no reason not to pass this bill. its ideas are bipartisan. its ideas are common sense. it will make a difference. that's not just my opinion, independent economists and validators have said this could add a significant amount to our gross domestic product, and could put people back to work all across the country. [applause] so the only thing that's stopping it is politics. [applause] and we can't afford these same political games. not now. so i want you to pick up the phone. i want you to send an email. use one of those airplane skywriters.

[laughter] dust off the fax machine. [laughter] or you can just, like, write a letter. [laughter] so long as you get the message to congress -- send me the american jobs act so i can sign it into law. let's get something done. let's put this country back to work. thank you very much, everybody. god bless you. [applause] ♪

[applause] >> you can read the full text of the jobs bill, also known as the

american jobs act, at c-span .org. before the cnn team party express, congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz of florida talked with reporters about republican candidates' views on social security. this is 20 minutes. >> good afternoon. i am debbie wasserman schultz, a member congress representing south florida. i chaired the democratic national committee. joining me are two local residents. peggy